Judgment :- 1. This is an application presented by a teacher employed under the Travancore-Cochin State praying that "for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue to the counter-petitioners directions, orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus, or other writs to correct the petitioner's date of birth from 4-11-1071 to 4-11-1076 M.E. and other consequential orders". There are three respondents to this petition who are 1. The State represented by the Chief Secretary to the Travancore-Cochin Government, Trivandrum, 2. Honourable Minister for Education, Trivandrum, and 3. Director of Public Instruction, Travancore-Cochin, Trivandrum. The place where the correction has to be made is not indicated in this application. In the affidavit accompanying it, however, it is stated that the date of birth shown in the Admission Register kept in the school in which the petitioner studied is 4-11-1071. That date was given by the petitioner as his date of birth when he was entertained in the service of the State on 8-2-1113. 2. There was a notification issued by the State in 1942 directing public servants to correct the errors, if any, in their dates of birth noted in the records connected with their service which should be done on production of satisfactory evidence in proof of the correct date. It was also indicated by a subsequent notification issued by the State in 1950 that the date of birth shown in the Registers kept by schools or colleges will be taken to be prime facie correct. The petitioner applied to correct the date of his birth in the records relating to his service not on the basis of the date of birth shown in the Admission Register maintained in the school in which he studied because that, according to him was erroneous. He therefore sought correction of the date of birth in the Admission Register first and then in every other subsequent records including those connected with his service because in every such record the date of birth was shown as in the admission register. He therefore sought correction of the date of birth in the Admission Register first and then in every other subsequent records including those connected with his service because in every such record the date of birth was shown as in the admission register. This application was presented when he got notice that he is due to retire on 17-6-1951 as by that time he would have completed 55 years of age calculated on the basis of the date of birth shown in the admission register and which is the date shown in the records connected with his service which was given by him on accepting appointment The petition was presented on 7-6-1951. No stay of the order for retirement pursuant to the notice was asked for and the petitioner was accordingly retired admittedly on 17-6-1951 and thereafter he is drawing his pension. The order on the petitioner's application to correct his date of birth, No. L. Dis 14261/50/EHL dated 23-5-1951 reads as follows: "Sub:- Correction of date of birth. Ref:- Petition received from Sri. M. Thomas, Assistant, M.P. School, Manjoor, praying for the correction of his date of birth from 4-11-1071 to 4-11-1076. The Petitioner's prayer is declined." The complaint of the petitioner is that the said order is not supported by any reasons, that the evidence adduced by him to sustain his application has not been referred to nor has he been given an opportunity to be heard. 3. In the counter-affidavit presented on behalf of the State, these allegations have been repudiated. 4. Apart from the merits of the matter which, in my judgment, the court is not competent to enquire into, the application being one for mandamus, an order can be issued only when an authority under an obligation to perform a legal duty fails to perform it. In AIR 1944 Madras 187 which was relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, Bell, J.granted an order of mandamus directing the Director of Public Instruction to consider an application presented on behalf of a student, who was a minor, to correct his date of birth. The authorities before whom the application was presented thought they had no jurisdiction to allow the prayer and therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction which they really had. The authorities before whom the application was presented thought they had no jurisdiction to allow the prayer and therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction which they really had. The learned judge upon a reading of the relevant rules came to the conclusion that alteration in the date of birth recorded in the admission register at the time when the student was admitted is contemplated by the rules and that the authorities had jurisdiction to alter it and in that view held that the authorities were not right in having declined jurisdiction. The court therefore directed the authorities to consider the petition and exercise their jurisdiction. In that case, the date of birth of the student in question, shown in the Register of birth and deaths, which is a public record maintained under the law in that regard, conflicted with the date of birth shown in the admission Register. The co-existence of two conflicting records regarding the identical matter could not be countenanced especially in view of the rules providing for correction of the date of birth. That decision has no application to the facts of this case as there is no declining to exercise jurisdiction here as the prayer was declined in exercise of jurisdiction. The order, though short, is one which was passed on the merits and if an authority under an obligation to perform a duty does perform it, the court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and correct any error that there might be in the exercise of that jurisdiction. Mandamus does not lie in a case of this description where the authority has functioned and the only criticism is that the order passed is unsustainable on the merits. Even if mandamus lies, the order cannot be issued in the form in which it is sought in this application, the prayer wherein is to direct the respondents to alter the date of birth from 4-11-1071 to 4-11-1076. What the court can do is only to direct the authorities to do their duty if they have declined to do it. It is beyond the competence of the court to direct the authorities to do the duty in a particular manner as in that case the court would be appropriating to itself the jurisdiction of the authorities which the law does not allow. 5. It is beyond the competence of the court to direct the authorities to do the duty in a particular manner as in that case the court would be appropriating to itself the jurisdiction of the authorities which the law does not allow. 5. The result is that the petition cannot be sustained and should, therefore, be dismissed with costs of the respondents who were all represented by the Government Pleader. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-. Dismissed.